The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is set up at the front of the accident point where an intersection is located, and at the same time, the defendant neglected to do so even though he had been driven at a lower speed than the limited speed. Moreover, the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case should be deemed to have influenced by the defendant's negligence. The occurrence of the traffic accident in this case should be deemed to have been affected by the defendant's negligence.

Therefore, the lower court which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the Defendant was not negligent, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. The driver of the judged motor vehicle has a duty of care to anticipate and prepare for the occurrence of an exceptional situation which is not anticipated ordinarily by fulfilling his/her duty of care to the extent that he/she could avoid the result of the occurrence in preparation for an ordinary predicted situation;

In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, i.e., ① the traffic accident of this case occurred at around 06:30, which occurred at around 07:41,000 on the day, and it appears that the surrounding area was considerably difficult at the time (see Article 32-3, the trial records). ② The victim was not only covered by the test color clothes (in addition, the 14th page of the investigation records), but also carried out by the defendant's moving direction, rather than crossing the road at the time of the accident. Thus, it seems that the defendant was very difficult to distinguish the victim's moving (the 6th page and 23th page of the investigation records), ③ the traffic accident of this case occurred at about 70:41,00,000,000 on the day, and ④ the limit of the traffic accident of this case is about 70km/h of the accident of the defendant, and it appears that the defendant had a duty to drive more than 51%/60,00.